Leaderboard

In Bible days all marriages were arranged by parents. Jewish women could turn down a proposal by not drinking of a cup, as I understand it. But as said above, marriage is all about committment. We all must work at making a good marriage. But the commitment has to be to God first and then to the spouse. But I am disturbed that he has no peace about the marriage. We are told to let the peace of God rule (act as an umpire) in our hearts. Col. 3:15 If this is not fear of committment, as many men experience, then he should pray a lot more about this. Communication is also a big part of marriage, and if he cannot tell her that he has doubts, that is also a very bad sign. If he is having doubts, she may also have them and they need to discuss them. Physical attraction is a big part of marriage, but committment and communication are even bigger. But men are likely to be focused on outward beauty, which fades in time. If that is all the marriage is about, it won't last. Godly women are adorned with a gentle and quiet spirit. Godly love is puts her needs above his own, and vice versa. It wants what is best for the other person. There are women that husbands find attractive who are down right ugly. But they have an inward glow or a very winsom personality so they find them to be beautiful and are attracted to them. If he sees no beauty in her something is really wrong.

Aah thank you for that, now it's becoming a lot clearer to me. I have a question tho, what is your opinion about the souls of those without Christ who will be judged according to their works, the ones who did not believe but at the same time didn't 'reject' Christ, say...such as a tribesman who had died without knowing Christ due to the gospel never made known to him. Do you believe that these types of people will go to hell?We are told in scripture that everyone can see God in nature. Romans 1:19-20. His invisible attributes can be clearly seen--even His eternal power and Godhead, so they are without excuse. v.20 so although they knew God,, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were they thankful. Most become idolitors. However, some like myself did worship God when I saw His power and splendor in His creation during a thunder storm when I was about 13. I had denied the resurrection when I was 4, stopped going to the liberal sunday school, and become an agnostic. But that night I saw God in nature and was overwhelmed with the beauty of His power when the streetlights were out and the lightning lit up the sky, revealing 70 foot trees bending under the wind and leaves whirling around my second story window. So I prayed, if there is a God, please make the lights go out again so I can see this again, and they did. Nearly 20 times they did when I prayed, which far exceeded the laws of probability. So I worshiped God and thanked Him. Some months later the Holy Spirit convicted me of sin. God granted me repentance and I confessed my repentance and faith to my friends. So I am sure that all through time God could have reached others in the same way since no one had told me to do these things. I have heard stories of Him telling people in Muslim lands and India where to go to find a missionary where they were led to the Lord. When we obey the light given us, God gives us more light. There is mention of other godly people in the Bible who God honored, such as Melchizedek. I am sure there must have been others that go unmentioned. But we have to be silent where the Bible is silent, and trust our righteous and holy God. The things that most often keep people from repenting and coming to Christ are the love of their wicked deeds and their pride. Romans 2 14, For when gentiles who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these--are a law unto themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts. But all obey imperfectly and so those who rely on the law/good works to justify them will be judged. But in 4:3 Abraham believed God and it was accounted for him as rightousness. So all who relied on the loving mercy of the invisible creator God will possibly be treated the same way since we also are justified by faith. All we know for sure is that in this day we must be born again. God's grace grants us repentance and faith in Christ, by which we are saved. We make Him our Lord when we obey the things that he puts on our hearts, such as baptism, restitution, confessing Him with out mouths, and reading the Bible.

Marriage, above all, is about commitment. I mean, do we all really wake up every morning filled with love and admiration for the person we are married to? I don't know about you all, but I have been through many dry times in my own marriage that I don't feel any of that. Once, for months. It was a long ordeal, but in faith, and because I had committed to this man, and God, in front of witnesses, I stayed. Sometimes asking The Lord to guard me and keep me from wrong. Some days during that period I woke up in the morning with this prayer "Father, today just help me put one foot in front of the other, to show love in action even though I am not feeling it" But above all I knew in my heart that God had brought us together, and sometimes it means work. Other times we are on cloud nine and soaring with feelings of love for each other. But the most important is that we are both committed to our relationship even when we are wondering what it's all for, and we feel like throwing in the towel. During the times I have wanted to throw in the towel I have prayed and asked The Lord to show me again why I love him, what is admirable about him. See the glass as half full, not half empty. And I also have to say this...the first fifteen years of our marriage was not easy on either of us, but we knew that we had both committed to God first, and each other, and took that very seriously. It was the glue that held us together. If not for my faith I would have left my marriage, I'm sure. My husband, on the other hand, was not a Christian back then, but he also knew that he had made a commitment and with commitment comes sacrifice. We have been together 23 years now, and our relationship is very solid and true today. We have both learned that "feelings" can be dangerous things at times. And more often than not, love is much more action than feeling.

Ahhhh, Yes SIR! And why is that in your humble opinion? I believe it is because satan has so entered the camp of the learned that it,(the Bible), is seen only as a book and not a living entity unique to itself alone! It is the Spirit of God that cause this uniqueness to be apparent and causes the seeker to be needful to rid ones self of the that self which repels the majority that come to It's shores... When God say's something it is so and only that of the child may embrace it without convoluting it's message Luke 18:16-17 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein. KJV As the clear an evident fact that cannot be any other- we are on the ruined side of the beginning and the only living witness available 'IS' The Word of God! Love, Steven

The book has got terrible reviews. Here's one that I found: "Poorly written to make a fast buck, it could best be described as the rantings of a lunatic. The thought process is bizarre at best. You'd be better off reading the back of a cereal box."

You have a lovely writing style, I had a heaven vision or experience once. I remember feeling like I was hit in the back of the head by a lighting bolt, then all of a sudden I was standing in a endless white room and I could feel intense love all around me, I remember wanting to stay there then the next thing the world came back into focus and the vision was gone. This happend to me many years ago before I was exposed to christianity.

Did everyone overlook the part that both felt like God has brought them together. think upon, Moses refused God said he couldn't give a good speech, Jonah run from God and the people God was wanting him to minister to. Ever been in a church, that you felt like God wanted you there but at first you felt like a fish out of water, but you hung in there and everything worked out?

There is a difference between OBSERVABLE evidence that the bible speaks nothing about, than NON-OBSERVABLE evidence science says is true that contradicts the bible. God chose to reveal Himself to the world and gave us His word on how things went down. He told us how He created us, the world and the universe. You (nor science) has any evidence of the Big Bang. You (nor science) has any evidence that we evolved from a common ancestor. You (nor science) has any evidence that the earth is billions of years old. You (nor science) has any evidence that the flood didn't happen. I am not speaking with arrogance that I know everything. I am speaking with faith in God that HE told us how HE did it. He was the only one there. And while science changes and changes and changes again, the Word of God has stood the test of time and taught us things we couldn't even begin to observe until modern times. I don't care if you disagree with me. I'm a fallible person. I'm not putting myself on the same level as God. I'm simply stating that if you accept a theory from atheistic science over what the bible says and what God said, then you have faith in neither and are calling both a liar. John 5:45–47, Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” So let me ask you the same thing Jesus asked. If you do not believe his writings, how do you believe His words?

The problem with Spock's presentation is that it relies upon an article (http://www.oldearth.org/poop.htm) purporting to expose the “ insurmountable obstacles for the young-earth model”. The article then proceeds to build its argument on a non-creationist premise; i.e. that secular labels for rock layers can be directly associated with creationist flood models; e.g. “all the Mesozoic rocks … were late-flood rocks”. In my experience, creationists writing about creationist flood models are explicit about how invalid such comparisons are. The creationist premise obviously doesn’t require the assumption that each sedimentary layer represents millions of years of homogeneous global deposition. So under the pressures of a single, globally-catastrophic flood, it is plausible that so-called “Mesozoic rocks” actually formed at different times in different geological locations. The irony of the article is that actual creationist flood models use signs of activity (e.g. poop, footprints, drowning, eating, copulation etc.) as markers indicating early-flood rocks. The article is based on a false premise. Therefore the supposed “insurmountable obstacles for the young-earth model” are easily ‘surmounted’ when considering the actual creationist arguments. This idea of a "insurmountable obstacle" is an error both sides of the discussion make with equal frequency. The problem is of course there can never be such a thing, people will believe what they want regardless of what lies in their way.

yes, there is more than one way to interpret the data, why then do you disparage those Christians that do not interpret it the same way you do? Because when you interpret the data in a way that agrees with atheistic science, you call the bible a liar, you call God a liar and it shows a lack of faith in both.

The problem with Spock's presentation is that it relies upon an article (http://www.oldearth.org/poop.htm) purporting to expose the “ insurmountable obstacles for the young-earth model”. The article then proceeds to build its argument on a non-creationist premise; i.e. that secular labels for rock layers can be directly associated with creationist flood models; e.g. “all the Mesozoic rocks … were late-flood rocks”. In my experience, creationists writing about creationist flood models are explicit about how invalid such comparisons are. The creationist premise obviously doesn’t require the assumption that each sedimentary layer represents millions of years of homogeneous global deposition. So under the pressures of a single, globally-catastrophic flood, it is plausible that so-called “Mesozoic rocks” actually formed at different times in different geological locations. The irony of the article is that actual creationist flood models use signs of activity (e.g. poop, footprints, drowning, eating, copulation etc.) as markers indicating early-flood rocks. The article is based on a false premise. Therefore the supposed “insurmountable obstacles for the young-earth model” are easily ‘surmounted’ when considering the actual creationist arguments.

Concerning a hyper-literal translation of Genesis 1, I think that since Genesis 1 doesn't have any observable parable or allegorical-like elements about it, we should take Genesis 1 mainly as a historical and descriptive narrative. And since God is not the author of confusion, it seems unlikely that he would start the Bible off with symbolic words before He had defined first the literal "at face value" meaning of those symbolic words. In the verse before Jesus says "I am the door," John writes, "This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them" (John 10:6). "Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep" (John 10:7). The context makes it quite apparent that Jesus is speaking figuratively.

All unbelievers who are awaiting in Hades to be judged will be thrown in the lake of fire? If they did not ask Jesus Christ into their life before they died and did not believe in Him then yes.We are given a choice while we still live to ask Jesus Christ into our life.The people who did not are now in Hades awaiting judgment.They will go to hell.I do not know if there are levels of punishment in hell.But it is all bad.That has been debated.Their are different levels of reward in heaven.Now is the time to repent and ask Jesus Christ into your heart and repent.You do not know what is ahead in any given second. Thank you for your opinion. Are you asking me if I asked Jesus into my heart? I think you should know by the way I interact with others on Worthy. No I am not.I am appealing to anyone who has not.

There is no purgatory or second chances. The souls of the dead in Christ are immediately in His Presence upon "death". Their bodies return to dust until the resurrection when they will receive a spiritual body like Christ's. Their names are written in the Lamb's book of Life and the second death has no power over them. The souls of those without Christ stay in the place of the dead--sheol, hades,--until the great white throne judgement when they will be judged according to their works. They don't linger around as ghosts either. Those who have rejected Christ will go to the lake of fire.

Or it could be that the stars were created prior to that and on day 4 they were made visable. How in the world can I justify that from the text? Such a maneuver (which might not be your own) sounds desperate. clb It comes down to the word used for "made" in the original Hebrew, "asah" which has a multitude of meanings not unlike the English word "made". If I told you that I made my bed this morning, would you think I covered it with sheets or that I got the wood and screws and such and created it from scratch. The word "asah" carries a different connotation than the word "bara" which is to create out of nothing. There has to be a reason that God choose different words for different things in Genesis 1. So God created stars before day 4; but stars that did not shine (come on, are you serious LFA?). Then on day 4 he "made" those stars give light, and at an infinite speed.... "There has to be a reason.......". I don't disagree on the importance of language; but if I made such a claim, the obvious response would be, "who are you to presume what God has to do?" The text clearly says he "set the lights" in the sky.......it is not talking about the "effect of the sun and moon" but their actual materiality as sources of light; I should assume the same with the other luminaries. clb clb They were shining, but you will notice that in verse 7 and 8 God separated the waters and the waters above the earth God called "sky". A canopy of water vapor would make a very effective filter stopping most light from hitting the surface of the earth. As for you add part, none of the translations I use, KJV, RSV or ESV use the phrase "set the lights".

Or it could be that the stars were created prior to that and on day 4 they were made visable. How in the world can I justify that from the text? Such a maneuver (which might not be your own) sounds desperate. clb It comes down to the word used for "made" in the original Hebrew, "asah" which has a multitude of meanings not unlike the English word "made". If I told you that I made my bed this morning, would you think I covered it with sheets or that I got the wood and screws and such and created it from scratch. The word "asah" carries a different connotation than the word "bara" which is to create out of nothing. There has to be a reason that God choose different words for different things in Genesis 1.

Or it could be that the stars were created prior to that and on day 4 they were made visable.

I Doctored the Photo via PhotoShop, Obviously.

I do not think that unregenerate man, the unsaved, has a chance at not sinning, so no one is saved becuase they stopped sinning. On the other hand . . . 8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. That passage seems like we are saved and then do the works that please God. 1 Cor 10:13 sounds almost as though for those who have been indwelt by the spirit, the saved, it might be possible to resist temptation: 13No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. Just thoughts.

As Desi stated, communication is a very key role in any relationship, and should def be utilized here if you see something you have a problem with. While you stated he is not a Christian, take that into consideration and remember that your views, perspectives, and up-bringing is of course going to be different. I believe that if you bring up a problem that you have with your significant other, and explain that your worried because you love them and don't want to see them get hurt, be stupid, etc, they should get the hint that you care enough him to intercede. I wish you all the best with this situation as drinking does affect many people; Christians and non-Christians. Stay strong and ultimately see if you can win another soul for Christ in the process.

I fail to see the problem here, he started shooting at a car full of teenagers for loud music? found guilty on 3 out of the 4 with enough sentence time to send him to jail the rest of his life? Id say justice is served regardless of how the last one turns out. Why is the media even throwing a fit over this?

Crucifixion was a pagan practice. The romans (at that time) were pagans, as were most (if not all) of the other cultures who used crucifixion as a method of execution, punishment, or torture. At the end of the day, though, that particular imagery is now associated with Jesus, because He died on a cross. Being overly concerned with what is and isn't a pagan symbol is really pointless as far as I'm concerned. That's attributing power to things that those things simply do not have. If pagans started worshiping toilets and build a gigantic temple to them right in the middle of your city, would you stop using toilets? Insofar as symbolism goes, it doesn't matter if some 2000 year old culture used something as some symbol for something that nobody associated with it now. Making something an object of worship is the problem. It'd be better to have 1000 pagan symbols in your living room, none of which you make an object of your trust or worship, than to call a broomstick or a saucer your god. All of these arguments boil down to freedom in Christ and the actual intent of use for an object by someone. The cross for most Christians is just an image that is associated with their faith. You see a cross on a building and there's a safe bet you're going to find fellow believers there (or at least there used to be). If you see a cross on a book then you can be pretty certain it's the Bible, etc. Having said that, a lot of symbols that i associate with paganism or the occult creep me out and I tend to stay away from them due to that, but that is my personal feeling on them. An argument could be made for damaging your witness or making your brother stumble with certain symbols as well, but we'll leave that for another thread at another time. Also, with regards to the OP, yes, JWs are heretic in their beliefs, primarily that Jesus was created and is not divine. Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. -> Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

I am developing a huge disregard for the news media sensationalizing of cases like this. How many murders occur every day that we hear not a peep about? The problem with cases such as this is that the American public is making their own judgments based on what the news media filters to them. In the case of Zimmerman and Martin, it was found that the news media doctored to the 9-11 dispatch it presented to the public to paint Zimmerman as a racist. So I have to wonder how much truth we are hearing in this. So we the public are presented with this unclear case making judgments on whether or not the young man are slanting the truth in their favor or whether or not the older man is slanting the truth in his favor. One can pray the truth comes to light and everyone involved will somehow come to know Jesus through this or another means, but other than that, I'd just as well stay out of trying to make any more judgements on these cases.

I agree that the sister needs to know the brother's lack of feeling for her. Not knowing this will lead her to heartbreak after heartbreak should they get married. To the brother, if his heart is not open to her, what does he want of her? Will he lay down his life, his pride, his ministry, his job, his everything for her - as Christ loved the Church? If he doesn't love her more than his needs and desires, he's starting out in the wrong spirit. If his desire is not towards her, then his desire to marry her is self-serving. The first act of love would be to tell her the truth. If she believes he has desires for her when she does not, then he is deceiving her, and deceit is not love.

The thief next to Jesus on the cross could not be baptized. He simply believed and asked Jesus to remember him when He came into His kingdom. Jesus answered "Today you will be with Me in Paradise" Baptism is not necessary at all unless God has put it on your heart to obey Him in this way. Paul only baptized one or two people. But he preached to the gentiles and many believed and were saved through His preaching and teaching. Jesus said that if your confess Him before men, He will confess you before His Father in heaven. So it is necessary that you confess your faith in Christ before others. If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9 If He is Lord of your life you desire to obey Him whether it be to confess Him or to be baptized. Believe means to trust in, adhere to and rely upon. It is not a passive word. Saving faith is an active faith. If you are asking this question God may be putting this step on your heart. It helps us to realize that God has buried the old sinful man and given you a new life when we go under water and come up. (Baptize means to dip to dye clothing.). Sinless Jesus was baptized as an example to us, endorsing that repentance is necessary to wash away our sins. Repentance is turning away from our sinful lifestyles and to Christ in faith, asking for mercy and help because we are unable to change ouselves in our own strength. A baby cannot repent. Ritual churches believe that the Holy Spirit comes into the baby when they are touched with blessed water and the word of God is spoken over them. Their excuse is that John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit in his mother's womb. However, we are not John the Baptist. In fact, he was the one who came preaching repentance and baptism. They also claim that whole households were baptized and that included babies. But there is no mention of any babies or young children living in those households. They are reading into it something that is not clearly stated in scripture. The important thing is that you obey whatever Christ is leading you to do. The first thing God led me to do was to repent, ask God to forgive me, receive that forgiveness because Jesus loves me, and to try to make restitution. Then God put it upon my heart to read the New Testament and psalms. A pastor one said that the first thing he had obeyed God in, when he was 6, was to pick up his clothes and clean his room. His mom had always kept after him to do that but this time he did it without being asked by her. He was asked by God. So it is different with everybody. But all do have to repent, trust in Jesus, and obey His promptings or voice so as to make Him Lord of our lives. Blessings, Willa Baptism is the commandment from Jesus Christ Himself (Mark 16:15-16; Matthew 28:19). It was implemented by the apostles on the day of Pentecost, those who believed were commanded to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38). Everybody who believed the gospel were baptized including Paul (Acts 8:36-39; Acts 18:8-9; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:1-7; Acts 22:16), all these tell us that baptism is very important because the apostles taught and preached it as they were led by the Holy Spirit. The thief on the cross died before Christianity and Jesus Christ whilst on earth had the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:10) so the thief on the cross was not a Christian because Christianity started on the day of Pentecost. Thanks and may God bless you

I disagree that the examples are "solid". They do not demonstrate the necessity of Common Ancestry for any discovery. I have provided specific arguments demonstrating why they fail to do so. And that's my point - no scientific discovery is necessarily, logically reliant upon Common Ancestry being true. Every discovery made by science could have been made independently of these secular assumptions. The assumption that all life on earh is related through a series of common Ancestors was not a necessary, logical prerequisit of any scientific discovery. What that means is - I can take my medicine without logically compromising my position. And I can confidently, rationally put to rest any specious claim that my position ignores evidence or is anti-science. I am happy for people to "judge for themselves". Rational people will consider both arguments and either agree with my proposal, or attempt to provide a rational rebuttal of my position. Others who are less rational will simply see what they want to see (in accordance with their own confirmation biases) and continue to stumble blindly through life; comfortable in their ignorance.